This is in Paraparaumu west of the ‘Ewy’, but it could be the first of several similar — from Horse Paddock Action
The 1.9 hectare [4.7 acre] property at 240 Kapiti Road, known locally as the horse paddock, has recently been sold to property development company Gresham Trustee Limited.
Gresham Trustee Limited was incorporated on 1 April 2021 and is wholly owned by Kurt Roland Kerrison.
Resource consent is sought from Kapiti Coast District Council and the Greater Wellington Regional Council for a 311-lot subdivision, 139 two-storey residential units and associated earthworks.
The development is proposed to include:
- 120 two-bedroom units, ranging from 72m2 to 75m2 in area
- 19 three-bedroom units, ranging from 106m2 to 109m2 in area
- 170 car parks
- an internal private two-way road network
- Communal open space.
Here’s a summary of concerns about the project
What is proposed is a ‘Coronation Street’ concept, but without the support facilities – i.e. shops and other community facilities.
Some people have referred to it as, ‘a low-security prison type complex, without the controls and razor-wire – both in looks and layout’.
The Developer appears to be seeking a huge and disproportionate profit from this parcel of land – having little regard to the impact the development may have on the existing properties and surrounding communities.
An unanswered question is, will this development offer greater opportunities to first home buyers – or will it just offer further premises for property investors to rent?
This proposal is totally out-of-character with the surrounding sub-divisions and dwellings.
Halsey Grove is the last street to be developed within the ‘Regent Estate’ subdivision. Why spoil it with ‘medium density’ housing of this nature?
There’s no objection to the concept of medium density housing – but not on this scale within a well-established area. A suitably subdivided ‘controlled activity’ of some 26 residential lots could be undertaken on the subject site, fitting in with the already existing subdivisions.
There is nothing in the application which indicates any consideration or regard has been afforded the present and established residents of the area. The application continuously refers to the impacts of the development as being ‘minor’ – this is a total understatement! This is code used to obtain a non-notifiable consent which, if granted, will deny local communities any say in shaping this proposed development.
Present residents (particularly those whose boundaries abut the proposed development) will lose privacy, views, sun, green spaces, and the quality, peace and tranquility they presently enjoy, and could still enjoy with a less invasive development.
For those properties on the boundary, this enjoyment will be replaced by an almost continuous 6.2m (over 20 foot) ‘wall’.
The loss of present property values does not appear to have been addressed at all. This could be considerable, is of great concern to the present residents, and should be carefully considered by the Council’s resource consent planners.
Not even nearby retirement/lifestyle villages (i.e., Seven Oaks, Kapiti Village, Summerset Paraparaumu, Midlands Gardens) incorporate a ‘medium density’ concept of this nature!
This type of proposal should be restricted to new areas, where it can be incorporated into the theme and planning of that area.
Vehicular access for possibly as many as 170 vehicles is conceivable:
One entrance/exit will ‘pour’ these vehicles into the adjoining subdivision, then lead onto already heavily used and congested main routes (Kapiti Rd, or Guilford Drive).At peak times, substantial delays already exist turning onto Kapiti Road, particularly when trying to turn right.
Pedestrian numbers – the proposal offers 297 bedrooms within the 139 units. Therefore it would be reasonable to assume between 200 and 400 new residents will occupy the complex.
Emergency and utility services access. The circular one-way roading system allows no room for a breakdown or blockage.
Update:
As at 10 June, no plans had been submitted to the KCDC and there is doubt that the ones described above would receive approval.
Coronation street housing indeed, or as it is known in the North of England Terraced Housing. Terraced housing blocks were built in the north of England to house mill workers. The job entailed working 12 hours a day 6 days a week. Profit for the mill owner was always of paramount concern. If a worker was not within the mill gates at start of the days work they were locked out without pay. Workers paid rent to stay in the mill owner built terraced housing. There were jobs for “knocker uppers” who walked the terrace blocks with a long stick tapping on the windows to wake the workers up. Then with the advent of mechanised mill machinery and emigres from Pakistan and India a lot of workers lost their jobs. The mills of the north spun cotton grown in the US under slave labour. The mills were work houses that would be regarded as slave labour sweat shops by todays standards. Eventually the cotton industry was moved to Pakistan and India in the persuit of ever increasing profits and cheap labour.
NZ does not need terraced housing or blocks of flats. As the article rightly suggests this is an attempt to maximise the profit made form one area of land. Just like the mill owners did in the North of England.
England no longer builds terraced housing like the cotton mill owners built.
“For those properties on the boundary, this enjoyment will be replaced by an almost continuous 6.2m (over 20 foot) ‘wall’.”
With only one entrance that is also the exit this would be a vaccine/lockdown mandater’s paradise requiring minmal staff to lock a whole community down in one place.
Indeed, a 20 ft wall and only one entrance to the complex…
There is no proposal for a 12 metre wall. The council will allow a maximum fence height of 1.8 metres.
Nobody mentioned a 12m wall?
Potentially a great idea. There are so many people struggling to find or afford a roof over their head that this could well provide some solutions for those lacking housing security or that don’t require the ‘1/4 acre dream’. I hope that the community at large can look at the big picture without letting unfair judgement or stereotypical assumptions get in the way of much needed options for people who are just as valid a part of the community as themselves.
I don’t own my own home Carolyn and I have lived in terraced houses in the past. I wouldn’t want to live in one now even if I did own it, no matter how cheap people think they may be.
The operative word being your first. OK it may not need a shop, but the authors raise the lack of any neighborhood indoor recreational facility and a 20ft wall around the perimeter. It’s concentrated cell type living.
It looks to be reminiscent of the housing ghettos of Porirua and Lower Hutt. The unfortunate people that will inhabit these structures will be hemmed in and with people living in such close quarters things are bound to get tense at times.
I very much agree with CS’s comment that these people really will be a captive bunch for any future lockdowns, for the good of their health of course. The government gives the impression of easing off on personal restrictions but I think is only temporary.
For goodness sake! We lived for 8 years just out of London. We bought in a ‘development ‘ some terraced ie joined together, some semi detached, ie two joined together. All 2 storied. Some were bought and rented out, majority privately owned. We loved it.
Thus sounds like a great development. We need more affordable housing. They will be on a bus route and for goodness sake they can walk to the beach and shops.
In London? Your London terraced house is far cry from the terraced houses of Nelson Lancashire. I challenge you to go live there for two years. DId your block have a 20 foot high wall around it?
This article is inaccurate. According to the council there is no proposal for a 12m wall. The council also confirmed that the maximum fence height can only be 1.8 metres.
The article states 6.2 metres, not 12 metres. A street-front wall height over 1.8 metres requires consent.
Consent has been broken with illegally removing wetland area, states in the RM of this site development that no water body can be altered by 20 cubic meters over any 10 year cycle , the developer had contractors pump out the water dig out subbase and back fill with large trucks delivering back fill for days , KCDC notified In April when works took place. they inspected site August couldn’t find any evidence, and have denied any wetland area, ( why no evidence was found , because it had regrown in vegetation in the 4 months it took KCDC to investigate) The case is now with the Ombudsman and GWRC ,
haha hows that GWRC & Ombudsman investigation going?
This is great news for first home buyers and anyone aged under 40. Most people I know have been locked out of the market and are crying out for more developments like this. The world is changing and so is your backyard!
Pingback: Kapiti council gives green light to 15-storey buildings in parts of the district | Waikanae Watch